Sociation Today

Modern Patterns of Racial Transition:
Comparing Northeast and Southern Metropolitan Areas

Introduction

There are persistent racial disparities in wealth that have only increased since the 1980s. Unlike political representation and educational attainment, the racial wealth gap is an arena where there has been virtually no progress in racial equality since the civil rights movement. For most families, their main source of wealth is the value of their home. Previous research has established unequal rates of home value appreciation among blacks, whites and latinos (Flippen 2004). Furthermore, unequal appreciation rates are largely a factor of the racial composition of the neighborhood (Anacker 2010; Moye 2014).

The main research question addressed by this manuscript is, "Do integrated neighborhoods have lower housing values due to their racial diversity?" The second research question is, "are there differences in the prevalence of stable integrated neighborhoods in Southern metropolitan areas as compared to Northeastern metropolitan areas?" Much of the existing research has been either nationwide in scope, or the targeted area has been northeastern or Midwestern metropolitan areas (Flippen 2004; Anacker 2010). There are many reasons to suggest that patterns of racial residential segregation and, therefore, patterns of neighborhood transition in southern metropolitan areas may substantially differ from patterns in northeastern or Midwestern metropolitan areas. First, because social segregation and norms of racial interaction were always so strict in southern areas, residential segregation was not as important to the white power structure. In fact, blacks employed as domestic laborers or agricultural workers were likely to live in close proximity to white families throughout most of the 20th century (Roof 1972). In contrast, as blacks migrated from the south to the industrial cities of the northeast and Midwest, whites organized and conspired to enforce strict residential separation from blacks (Gotham 2000). Second, racially targeted hate crimes relating to neighborhood exclusion occur more often in the northeast and still occur in the early 21st century (Bell 2013). Third, as measured by the index of dissimilarity, southern cities tend to have substantially lower levels of black-white segregation (Glaeser and Vigdor 2012).

Theoretical Framework: Racial Formation Theory

Omi and Winant define racial formation as the "socio-historical process by which racial categories are created, inhabited, transformed, and destroyed" (Omi and Winant 1994). The advantage of racial formation theory is its focus on explaining how racial ideology changes across time periods, and why. I use racial formation theory to explain the transformation of the racial category "integrating" in definitions of residential neighborhoods.

    According to Omi and Winant, social movements can challenge the dominant racial ideology through "racial projects," defined as "simultaneously an interpretation, representation, or explanation of racial dynamics, and an effort to reorganize and redistribute resources along particular racial lines." A multitude of racial projects "form an interrelated web that constitutes racial formation." Racial projects take place, and can be analyzed, at both the macro levels, such as state policy, and micro levels like everyday interactions.

    At the macro-level, the trajectory of racial ideology begins with an "unstable equilibrium," which is then confronted with a racially-based social movement, essentially a large scale racial project seeking to redefine popular racial ideology. A crisis occurs when the social movement is large and loud enough to upset the pre-existing racial ideology. The crisis causes disagreements within and between state agencies as they consider a response. The state's response includes elements of both absorption and insulation. Absorption consists of the state acquiescing to certain components of the social movement's demands, while insulation occurs when the state confines demands to symbolic realms, where they will do little to change the racial order. The result is a new, slightly unstable, racial ideology that will exist more or less unchallenged until the next crisis ensues. This is the general process by which racial ideology is changed overtime.

    The other important concept of racial formation theory is the idea of "common sense," borrowed from Antonio Gramsci's concept of "hegemony." Hegemony is defined broadly as political, ideological, economic, and social domination. To consolidate hegemony, those in power must elaborate and maintain a popular system of ideas and practices-through education, the media, folk wisdom, etc.—the sum of which is called "common sense." "Common sense" is therefore a system of ideas and practices which reinforces the dominant racial ideology. This system of ideas often leads to a particular series of actions, which may have consequences along racial lines. Racial projects are the applications of the common sense ideology in concrete situations. Racial projects, experienced everyday in the form of media depictions of black neighborhoods and other forms of popular culture, constantly define, in racial terms, the common sense meaning of integrated neighborhoods.

    I argue that the dominant racial ideology has, for much of the 20th century, included the notion that "racially integrating neighborhoods lose value" as common sense. Given this ideology, individuals involved in the real estate market simply applied their common sense understanding in concrete situations. An example of a micro-level racial project could include the suggestion by a realtor that "you would not want to move into that [integrating] neighborhood, it is going downhill." The prospective realtor's statement contains an interpretation of neighborhood quality along racial dynamics with the suggestion that it is "going downhill." It also contains an effort to redistribute resources along racial lines by urging prospective buyers not to invest in integrating neighborhoods. The realtor has specifically discouraged investment because of the racial turnover. Without investment, the quality of housing will gradually decline and the housing will in fact lose value. The statement is an example of how "common sense" is manifested in racial projects which then reinforce the dominant racial ideology.

    Omi and Winant's concept of racialization can be applied not only to bodies, but to places, things, areas, etc. For example, within schools, academic tracks have taken on racial meanings (Staiger 2004). Staiger found that the magnent program came to be recognized as an area for white students, which contributed to high levels of within-school segregation. Racialization can also be applied to neighborhoods. Neighborhoods are often defined as a white neighborhood or as a black neighborhood. I argue that a hegemonic social system which ranks bodies based on a racial classification system (which is present in the U.S.) also ranks places based on the racial groups that inhabit them.

    Racial formation theory may be useful for understanding the role that race has played in devaluing certain (black and other non-white) local housing markets and inflating the value of other (white) local housing markets. Specifically, I argue that the common sense understanding of racially integrating neighborhoods has undergone a significant change in meaning over the past half century. During the 1950s and 1960s, integrating neighborhoods were always viewed negatively, assumptions were made that the neighborhood would rapidly become all-black, and the neighborhood would be subject to disinvestment by realtors, mortgage lenders, and housing appraisers. I argue that by the end of the 20th century, realtors, mortgage lenders, appraisers, and homeowners do not always attach negative meaning to racially integrating neighborhoods, but consider many other factors of the local housing market. In some instances, racially integrating neighborhoods may remain stable and avoid dis-investment.

Literature Review

Preferences

A popular explanation for residential segregation has been that long-term integration is unlikely simply because of a large discrepancy in preferences. Whites prefer neighborhoods that are no more than 15% black; blacks prefer neighborhoods that are 50% black (Clark 1991; Farley, Fielding, and Krysan 1997). Even small differences in the preferences for integration could lead to high levels of segregation (Schelling 1969). This is because as the percentage of blacks who live in a predominantly white neighborhood increases, more blacks will find the area attractive, while fewer and fewer whites will still find the area acceptable. Eventually, as blacks move in and whites move out, the neighborhood completely turns over and the area, which was integrated during the transition phase, has become a predominantly black area and the region is just as segregated as it was initially. Whites outnumber blacks and have more financial resources. Therefore when whites no longer consider a neighborhood to be desirable, prices for houses in that neighborhood will decline, relative to surrounding neighborhoods.

If the discrepancy in preferences were accurate and important, than very few neighborhoods would remain integrated with blacks and whites over a lengthy amount of time. Yet integrated neighborhoods are becoming more prevalent (Ellen, Horn, and Regan 2012; Ellen 2000; Fasenfest, Booza, and Metzger 2004; Freidman 2008). Ellen looked at areas which were between 10-40% black in 1970 and found that by 1990, most of these remained racially mixed, rather than predominantly white or predominantly black. In a follow up study, Ellen Regan and Horn (2012) found that most of the neighborhoods which were integrated in 2000 remained integrated in 2010. In a separate study, the number of mixed-race neighborhoods increased between 1990 and 2000, and whites and blacks became less likely to live in neighborhoods in which their own race dominated (Fasenfest, Booza, and Metzger 2004). Of the white-black integrated neighborhoods Fasenfest, Booza, and Metzger (2004) identified in 1990, 47% remained integrated by 2000. Another researcher reported that of the neighborhoods which were integrated in 1980, only 20% shifted to become majority black neighborhoods by 2000 (Friedman 2008). A study of Chicago produced similar results, as most integrated neighborhoods in 1980 remained integrated by 1990, and more of the neighborhoods were moving towards integration than moving away from integration (Maly 2000). Therefore, despite large differences in preferences for neighborhood integration, black-white integrated neighborhoods do exist, and many of them remain integrated for 10 years or longer.

Neighborhood Transition and Housing Values

    Real estate values have been explicitly connected to the racial composition of the neighborhood residents since at least the early 20th century. In the 1930s, in the midst of a depression, the federal government instituted the Federal Housing Act to boost the economy by backing mortgages. However, the policy only backed racially homogenous [all-White] neighborhoods as worthy of receiving loans (Gotham 2000). Banking and mortgage institutions followed suit and would participate in redlining, marking off any black or racially mixed neighborhoods as ineligible for a mortgage. Although whites fiercely defended keeping black families out of their neighborhoods, eventually some neighborhoods would start to integrate due to population pressures and blacks seeking larger, higher quality housing. When one or two black families moved in, additional white families would quickly, leave, fearing a decline in neighborhood quality. Realtors would stoke these fears and take advantage of the spreading panic, convincing whites to sell quickly before the neighborhood became all black and their houses lost value. Opportunists could then raise the price for black buyers, as there were many blacks looking to purchase in the neighborhood for every vacancy.

    This pattern was documented in many cities during the mid-20th century (Gabriel 1987; Gillete 1957; King & Mieszkow 1973; Taueber & Taueber 1965). Yet it is still unclear how prevalent the pattern of rapid transition is in the early 21st century. As attitudes toward racial integration have become more moderate over time, perhaps fewer neighborhoods will racially transition. However, there is still the perception among most buyers that black neighborhoods will not hold their value, and that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy which can negatively impact housing values in transitioning or integrated neighborhoods.

    Beyond the disagreement over the prevalence of stable, integrated neighborhoods, research has shown that the racial composition of a neighborhood can have negative impacts on housing prices (Coate and Schwester 2011; Flippen 2004; Hipp and Singh 2014; Kim 2003; Macpherson and Sirmans 2001; Myers 2004). Most of the research has found that as the percentage of black residents increases, home values either decline or fail to appreciate. Hipp and Singh (2014) find that throughout the 60s and 70s increasing racial diversity was associated with lower housing values in southern California, but in the 90s the negative association disappeared.

    What has not been investigated is what happens to white neighborhoods when African Americans move in, but the whites do not move out.   These neighborhoods become racially integrated and stable, rather than changing from white to black. How do these neighborhoods compare to neighborhoods that are predominately white, predominately black or neighborhoods that are transitioning from white to black?

    If housing prices and appreciation rates are strongly influenced by the percent of African Americans in the neighborhood, then we might expect stable, integrated neighborhoods to occupy an intermediate position between predominately white and black neighborhoods. This position they would share with transitioning neighborhoods which are also integrated, although temporarily. However, another possibility is that stable integrated neighborhoods may benefit from a high demand for housing in these types of communities. This demand is the result of whites who are still willing to live in these types of neighborhoods—with some are actively seeking them out—and African Americans finding these types of neighborhoods more desirable than predominately black neighborhoods. Therefore, the housing prices and appreciation rates in stable integrated neighborhoods would be higher than those in predominately African American or transitioning neighborhoods and may be comparable to, or even higher than, those in predominately white neighborhoods.

Regional Differences

Many sociologists report that whites in the south are more prejudiced towards blacks than whites in the rest of the country. Some have argued this difference in racial attitudes between the south and the non-south has decreased since the 1960s (Carter et al 2014). Others argue the difference is still large and significant (Carter 2010; Griffin and Harris 2008). However, the way that racism and prejudice is actually experienced by black residents does not fit with the literature. Blacks who had recently migrated to Charlotte from the northeast or Midwest noticed the lower levels of segregation and that they faced fewer economic constraints in the Charlotte than they had in the northeast or Midwest cities (Pendergrass 2013).

Despite the research on racial attitudes showing greater white prejudice in the south, levels of segregation, as measured by the dissimilarity index, are lower in most southern MSAs than in northeastern or rustbelt cities. Of the largest cities by African American Population, northern cities New York (64.7) ,Chicago (71.9) (62.6), Detroit (73.5), St. Louis (71.0), and Cleveland (71.5), each have much higher dissimilarity scores than southern cities Houston (47.8), Atlanta (54.1), Miami (58.1) or Dallas (47.5) (Glaeser and Vigdor 2012). Charlotte (47.1) and Raleigh (38.6) have even lower levels of segregation.

Data and Methods

All data for this analysis comes from the Longitudinal Tract Database, where data from multiple decennial censuses has been combined so that researchers can examine changes overtime (US2010). Philadelphia was chosen as the northeastern metropolitan area. It has a long documented history of institutional real estate discrimination as well as newsworthy incidents of whites trying to prevent their neighborhoods from becoming integrated (Brownlow 2005; Delmont 2012; Hurdle 2008). Philadelphia remains one of the most segregated metropolitan areas of the country. Population in the metropolitan areas has been virtually stagnant since 1990, and the population in the city has actually declined. Charlotte and Raleigh were chosen as southern comparisons cities partly for Charlotte's large and growing population and that North Carolina has received a large number of migrants from the northeast. They were also chosen because both Charlotte and Raleigh are similar to Philadelphia in terms of the racial mix of residents: each area is about 22% black and has been since the at least the 1980s. Similar to other Southern MSAs, both Raleigh and Charlotte have had a large increase in total population since the 1970s. Raleigh has experienced a booming technology industry and above average levels of Hispanic immigration since the 1990s.

Definitions of transitioning, stable integrated, predominantly white, and predominantly black are adopted from those used by Ellen (2000) and Moye (2014), to best represent distinctive neighborhood types. Table 1 includes the specific definitions of each neighborhood category.

Table 1

	Definition
Predominantly White	At least 75% White; less than 10 percentage point shift in Black, Hispanic, Asian
Predominantly Black	At least 50% Black; less than 10 point shift in White or Hispanic or Asian
Stable Integrated	At least 50% White; 15% Black; less than 10 point shift in Black, Hispanic or Asian
Black White Transitioning	At least 50% White in 1990; more than 10 point shift in Black
Multi-Ethnic Transitioning	At least 50% White in 1990; more than 10 point shift in Hispanic or Asian
Multi-Ethnic	Greater than 30% combined Asian & Latino

Findings

Table 2 shows the neighborhood composition, by year, of each metropolitan area.

Table 2
Racial Composition by Neighborhood Type and by Year and by Metropolitan Area

PHILADELPHIA		1990			2000			2010
	N	White	Black	Latino	White	Black	Latino	White	Black	Latino
Predominantly White	928	94	3	1	90	4	2	84	6	4
Predominantly Black	188	12	83	4	8	86	4	10	81	6
Stable Integrated	88	69	25	4	65	25	6	60	25	10
Black White Transitioning	135	81	12	4	50	34	9	32	46	15
Multi-Ethnic Transitioning	56	83	10	3	67	16	8	56	18	15
Multi-Ethnic	37	24	26	42	13	28	47	12	25	52

CHARLOTTE		1990			2000			2010
	N	White	Black	Latino	White	Black	Latino	White	Black	Latino
Predominantly White	302	92	7	1	88	7	2	80	10	6
Predominantly Black	39	22	76	1	17	78	3	17	73	6
Stable Integrated	66	74	24	1	66	25	6	57	27	13
Black White Transitioning	71	79	17	1	53	34	7	34	44	16
Multi-Ethnic Transitioning	38	78	18	1	63	23	9	49	28	19
Multi-Ethnic	6	50	45	2	23	36	36	20	33	45

RALEIGH-DURHAM		1990			2000			2010
	N	White	Black	Latino	White	Black	Latino	White	Black	Latino
Predominantly White	122	88	8	1	84	8	3	77	10	6
Predominantly Black	15	13	86	1	9	85	5	10	78	10
Stable Integrated	88	72	26	1	67	24	5	61	24	11
Black White Transitioning	24	78	19	1	52	36	7	37	41	17
Multi-Ethnic Transitioning	49	82	15	1	67	19	8	57	21	15
Multi-Ethnic	3	61	32	3	37	27	30	28	25	41

The stable-integrated neighborhoods are approximately 66% non-hispanic white and 25% non-hispanic black in 1990, 2000, and 2010 with only a very small percentage point drop in the non-hipanic white population each decade. A portion of the decline can be attributed to the aging of the white population and the lower fertility rate among non-hispanic whites, rather than migration in or out of the neighborhood. In stark contrast to the stable-integrated neighborhoods, the Black-White Transitioning neighborhoods have undergone a dramatic decline in the percentage of non-Hispanic white residents between 1990 and 2010. In each metropolitan area, these transitioning neighborhoods have declined from approximately 80% white to less than 40% white during the study area. The pace of change is not as rapid as what often occurred during the mid-20th century, but it is still quite a dramatic shift in a relatively short amount of time, and is very different from the stability seen in other neighborhood types of the region. Typically, the racial composition of the neighborhoods do not shift a great deal in a short amount of time.

The patterns of transition, including the degree of transition are relatively consistent between Philadelphia and the two southern metropolitan areas. However, there is a key difference: the amount of transition is noticeably lower in both Charlotte and Raleigh. In fact, stable integrated neighborhoods outnumber transitioning areas in Raleigh by a more than 3-to-1 ratio. In Charlotte, there are slightly more transitioning neighborhoods than stable integrated areas, but in Philadelphia there are about 50% more transitioning neighborhoods (188) as there are stable integrated areas (135).

Table 3 shows the average median home value for each neighborhood and average home value appreciation between 1990 and 2010 (Median home value comes from the American Community Survey, and is aggregated to the tract level by the census bureau. I have calculated the mean for all tracts in a given category (i.e. Predominantly White/Predominantly Black / Stable Integrated etc.)).

Table 3:

Median Home Values and Home Value Appreciation

PHILADELPHIA
	1990	2000	2010	Appreciation 1990 - 2010
Predominantly White	$140,600	$156,359	$299,888	113%
Predominantly Black	$42,472	$52,344	$111,917	164%
Stable Integrated	$103,924	$120,365	$242,051	133%
Black White Transitioning	$77,479	$80,877	$148,573	92%
Multi-Ethnic Transitioning	$99,104	$103,565	$216,025	118%

CHARLOTTE
	1990	2000	2010	Appreciation 1990 - 2010
Predominantly White	$88,240	$143,402	$213,499	142%
Predominantly Black	$45,978	$69,708	$97,310	112%
Stable Integrated	$62,511	$102,411	$137,859	121%
Black White Transitioning	$77,125	$105,754	$128,617	67%
Multi-Ethnic Transitioning	$71,607	$108,263	$140,439	96%

RALEIGH-DURHAM
	1990	2000	2010	Appreciation 1990 - 2010
Predominantly White	$118,275	$196,546	$287,068	143%
Predominantly Black	$60,917	$88,736	$120,033	97%
Stable Integrated	$80,461	$127,590	$181,761	126%
Black White Transitioning	$80,784	$115,105	$143,292	77%
Multi-Ethnic Transitioning	$96,791	$140,149	$193,851	100%

For each neighborhood type, Appreciation is calculated as the percentage change in average median home value between 1990 and 2010. The important finding here is that home value appreciation rates, on average, are substantially lower in the black-white transitioning areas than in any other neighborhood type across the metropolitan area. This may be related to the self-fulfilling prophecy of home owners being reluctant to move into transitioning areas because they anticipate lower values, and that lower demand for housing in those neighborhoods actually causing lower values. This is true in each metropolitan area: lower housing values for transitioning neighborhoods. This is therefore the same pattern observed in the mid-20th century: as blacks move into white neighborhoods, housing values fail to appreciate. Note that although appreciation levels are substantially lower, home values did not actually decline, they just did not rise as much would be expected.

Figures 1 2 & 3 show the location of each neighborhood type across the three metropolitan areas. The transitioning neighborhoods are located between predominantly black neighborhoods and predominantly white neighborhoods. The stable-integrated neighborhoods tend to be more spread out across the metropolitan regions, rather than clustered as the transitioning and predominantly black neighborhoods are. Comparing the three metropolitan areas, it is easy to see that the stable integrated areas are much more prevalent in Raleigh than in Philadelphia. In Philadelphia, there are a large number of predominantly black neighborhoods in the central city, with transition areas around the periphery of the predominantly black neighborhoods. The same pattern can be seen in the Raleigh MSA, but on a much smaller scale, with many more stable integrated areas throughout the region.

Figure 1
Location of Neighborhood Types in Philadelphia MSA

Figure 2
Location of Neighborhood Types in Charlotte MSA

Figure 3
Location of Neighborhood Types in Raleigh, MSA

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that in the 21st century, there are still neighborhoods which move from being predominantly white to becoming predominantly black very quickly. These racially transitioning neighborhoods tend to have much lower rates of home value appreciation than other neighborhoods in the metropolitan area. This is bad news, particularly for upwardly mobile African-American households. They move into a neighborhood that they probably expect will be of a higher quality than the predominantly black neighborhood they might have grown up in or previously lived in. They are probably expecting that they will be able to build equity by purchasing a home, and that their home will be very valuable 10 or 20 years down the road. But in fact, the neighborhood they move into may be predominantly black by the time they've earned any substantial equity. The house may not be particularly valuable compared to other neighborhoods in the metropolitan area. Blacks who live in transitioning areas will not gain equity as quickly as whites who live in other neighborhoods. Due to the differences in home value appreciation, the racial wealth gap will continue to rise.

This is evidence that the common sense meaning of black neighborhoods is still quite negative. The negative connotations associated with black neighborhoods impact rapidly transitioning neighborhoods. Transitioning neighborhoods therefore will likely have fewer institutional resources available to them as well as lower demand from buyers, resulting in lower rates of home value appreciation.

There is also evidence, however, that the common sense meaning of racially integrated neighborhoods has shifted, and that those neighborhoods are not automatically subject to disinvestment. In all three metropolitan areas, rates of home value appreciation in stable integrated neighborhoods were average or above average.

Despite this overall finding that appreciation is substantially lower in racially transitioning neighborhoods, there were important differences between Philadelphia, Raleigh and Charlotte in the prevalence of transitioning neighborhoods. In Philadelphia, the transitioning neighborhoods vastly outnumbered the stable integrated areas, but in Raleigh the opposite is true. In Charlotte, stable integrated areas are only slightly outnumbered. In a place like Raleigh, this means that when blacks purchase housing, their homes are likely to appreciate just as much as whites. It also means that they are likely to live in an integrated area and have access to neighborhood amenities and public services that are available to typical white residents. Those concerned with racial equality should be encouraged by the prevalence of stable integrated neighborhoods in southern MSAs.

Directions for Future Research

This is a comparison of three selected metropolitan areas. Future research should expand this study to other large metropolitan areas in different regions around the nation to test whether these findings are similar elsewhere across the country. This data is aggregate repeated cross-sectional case study of three metropolitan areas. This limits the generalizability of the results. Although the findings demonstrate that home values appreciation is lower in racially transitioning neighborhoods, it is possible that a sizable minority of black homeowners in those neighborhoods do have homes with above average home value appreciation. Furthermore, it is not known from this dataset how long the typical tenure of black or white homeowners is in these neighborhoods. Future research should track the movements of a sample of black and white homeowners to determine more directly how residence in integrated or transitioning neighborhoods impacts household wealth.

References

Bell, J. (2013). Hate Thy Neighbor: Move-In Violence and the Persistence of Racial Segregation in American Housing. NYU Press.

Brownlow, Alec. 2005. "A Geography of Men's Fear." Geoforum 36:581-592.

Carter, J. Scott. 2010. "A Cosmopolitan Way of Life for All? A Reassessment of the Impact of Urban and Region on Racial Attitudes From 1972 to 2006." Journal of Black Studies 40:1075-1093.

Carter, J. Scott, Mamadi Corra, Shannon K. Carter; Rachael McCrosky. 2014. "The Impact of Place? A Reassessment of the Importance of the South in Affecting Beliefs about Racial Inequality." Social Science Journal 51:12-20.

Clark, William A. V. 1991. "Residential Preferences and Neighborhood Racial Segregation - A Test of the Schelling Segregation Model." Demography 28:1-19.

—. 2009. "Changing Residential Preferences across Income, Education, and Age: Findings from the Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality." Urban Affairs Review 44:334-355.

Coate, Douglas and Richard Schwester. 2011. "Black-White Appreciation of Owner-Occupied Homes in Upper Income Suburban Integrated Communities: The Cases of Maplewood and Montclair, New Jersey." Journal of Housing Research 20:127-139.

Delmont, Matt. 2012. "Making Philadelphia Safe for WFIL-adelphia: Television, Housing, and Defensive Localism in Postwar Philadelphia." Journal of Urban History 38:89-113.

Ellen, Ingrid G., Keren Horn, and Katherine Regan. 2012. "Pathways to Integration: Examining Changes in the Prevalence of Racially Integrated Neighborhoods." Cityscape 14:33-53.

Ellen, Ingrid Gould. 2000. "Race-based Neighbourhood Projection: A Proposed Framework for Understanding New Data on Racial Integration." Urban Studies 37:1513-1533.

Farley, Reynolds, Elaine L. Fielding, and Maria Krysan. 1997. "The Residential Preferences of Blacks and Whites: A Four-Metropolis Analysis." Housing Policy Debate 8:763-800.

Fasenfest, David, Jason Booza, and Kurt Metzger. 2004. "Living Together: A New Look at Racial/ethnic Integration in Metropolitan Neighborhoods, 1990-2000." The Brookings Institution: Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.

Flippen, Chenoa 2004. "Unequal Returns to Housing Investments? A Study of Real Housing Appreciation Among Black, White, and Hispanic Households." Social Forces 82:1523-1551.

Friedman, Samantha. 2008. "Do Declines in Residential Segregation Mean Stable Neighborhood Racial Integration in Metropolitan America? A Research Note." Social Science Research 37:920-933.

Gabriel, Stuart A. 1987. "Economic-Effects of Racial Integration - An Analysis of Hedonic Housing Prices and the Willingness To Pay." Journal of the American Real Estate & Urban Economics Association 15:268-279.

Glaseser, Edward and Jacob Vigdor. 2012. "The End of the Segregated Century: Racial Separation in America’s Neighborhoods, 1890-2010." New York, NY: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, No. 66.

Gotham, Kevin Fox. 2000. Urban Space, Restrictive Covenants and the Origins of Racial Residential Segregation in a US city, 1900–50. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 24(3), 616-633.

Griffin, Larry J. and Peggy G. Hargis. 2008. "South Polls—Still Distinctive After All These Years- Trends in Racial Attitudes in and out the South." Southern Cultures 14:117-141.

Hipp, John R, and Amrita Singh. 2014. "Changing Neighborhood Determinants of Housing Price Trends in Southern California, 1960-2009." City and Community 13:254-274.

Hurdle, John. 2008. "Police Beating of Suspects is Taped by TV Station in Philadelphia." in New York Times.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/us/08philadelphia.html?referrer=

Kim, Sunwoong. 2003. "Long-Term Appreciation of Owner-Occupied Single-Family House Prices in Milwaukee Neighborhoods." Urban Geography 24:212-231.

King, A. Thomas and Peter Mieszkow. 1973. "Racial Discrimination, Segregation, and Price of Housing." Journal of Political Economy 81:590-606.

Krysan, Maria. 2002. "Community Undesirability in Black and White: Examining Racial Residential Preferences Through Community Perceptions." Social Problems 49:521-543.

Macpherson, David A. and G. Stacy Sirmans. 2001. "Neighborhood Diversity and House-Price Appreciation." Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 22:81-97.

Maly, Michael T. 2000. "The Neighborhood Diversity Index: A Complementary Measure of Racial Residential Settlement." Journal of Urban Affairs 22:11.

Moye, Richard. 2014. "Neighborhood Racial-Ethnic Change and Home Value Appreciation: Evidence from Philadelphia." Urban Geography 35:236-263.

Myers, Caitlin K. 2004. "Discrimination and Neighborhood Effects: Understanding Racial Differentials in US housing prices." Journal of Urban Economics 56:279-302.

Pendergrass, Sabrina. 2013. "Perceptions of Race and Region in the Black Reverse Migration to the South." DuBois Review-Social Science Research On Race 10:155-178.

Roof, W. Clark. 1972. "Residential Segregation of Blacks and Racial Equality in Southern Cities: Toward a Casual Model." Social Problems 19:393-407.

Schelling, Thomas C. 1969. Models of Segregation. Santa Monica, Calif.,: Rand Corp.

Staiger, A. 2004. "Whiteness as Giftedness: Racial Formation at an Urban High School." Social Problems 51:161-181.

Taeuber, Karl E. and Alma F. Taeuber. 1965. Negroes in Cties: Residential Segregation and Neighborhood Change. Chicago: Aldine Pub. Co. US2010 Project Website.
(http://www.s4.brown.edu/us2010/Researcher/Bridging.htm)